Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →A venture fund can show substantial value on paper while returning little cash to investors. As of Q2 2026, Carta reported median DPI of 0.37x for 2017-vintage funds, 0.15x for 2018 vintages and 0.04x for 2019 vintages. Those figures describe distributions relative to paid-in capital—not total fund value. To assess performance fairly, read TVPI, DPI and IRR together, and compare funds with peers of a similar vintage, strategy, geography and size.
What do the main venture capital performance metrics measure?
Start with paid-in capital: the contributions investors have actually funded. It is different from committed capital, which includes amounts an investor has agreed to provide but may not yet have been called. The calculations below use paid-in capital as the denominator; confirm whether a reported figure is net to limited partners (LPs) or gross at the investment or fund level.
| Metric | What it measures | How to read it |
|---|---|---|
| TVPI (total value to paid-in) | (Distributions + residual portfolio value) ÷ paid-in capital | Total realized and unrealized value relative to funded capital. A 1.0x multiple is nominal break-even in value terms, subject to valuations and the stated net or gross basis. |
| DPI (distributions to paid-in) | Distributions to LPs ÷ paid-in capital | Cash distributed relative to funded capital. It excludes holdings still in the fund. |
| RVPI (residual value to paid-in) | Residual unrealized value ÷ paid-in capital | Value still held in the fund, excluding distributions already made. |
| IRR (internal rate of return) | A time-sensitive, annualized return measure based on cash flows | Communicates the effect of timing; it does not by itself show how much cash has been returned. |
TVPI is the sum of DPI and RVPI when the figures use the same paid-in denominator and reporting basis. That identity explains why DPI is usually below TVPI while a fund still holds assets: the difference is value that has not yet been distributed. Residual values are estimates, not cash, and can change as valuations are updated. For that reason, every multiple is a snapshot tied to a reporting date.
Why can a high TVPI coexist with low DPI?
A fund may have investments marked at substantial values but not yet have sold them or distributed proceeds. TVPI counts those residual marks alongside cash already distributed; DPI counts distributions only. Low DPI alongside higher TVPI therefore signals that much of the reported value remains unrealized, not that it has already reached LPs.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →#1 Best Overall
Carta’s Q2 2026 summary illustrates the gap: median DPI was 0.37x for 2017-vintage funds, 0.15x for 2018 vintages and 0.04x for 2019 vintages. These are Carta-reported observations as of Q2 2026, not universal benchmarks or a guarantee of future distributions. They show why a TVPI headline alone cannot answer the liquidity question.
How does timing change the picture?
IRR is sensitive to when cash flows occur, while TVPI summarizes value without expressing the timing of those flows. Two funds with similar multiples can therefore have different IRRs if their investments and distributions happened on different schedules. Conversely, a fund can retain a strong TVPI while its reported IRR eases as exits and distributions take longer.
Rank #2
Carta’s Q2 2026 summary put the 90th-percentile IRR for 2017-vintage funds at 25.7%, down from 28.7% two years earlier. Read that as a dated observation for that cohort, not as a realized-cash figure or a general return target. To understand timing and liquidity, look at IRR alongside DPI and TVPI.
Why do vintage and fund age matter?
Vintage year—the year a fund began investing—is central to comparisons because funds from different years have had different amounts of time to invest, mature and distribute proceeds. The NVCA 2026 Yearbook identifies vintage as the single most important contextual variable for comparing venture fund performance. Where a precise vintage match is unavailable, use a clearly stated range rather than treating different cohorts as equivalent.
Fund age also changes how a multiple should be interpreted. Early in a fund’s life, fees and investments that have not yet appreciated can contribute to a J-curve: reported value may sit below paid-in capital before later outcomes are known. There is no single, source-backed “good TVPI” threshold that applies across all fund ages, strategies and vintages.
As one historical reference point, the NVCA 2026 Yearbook, using PitchBook data as of June 30, 2025, reports that 2010–2016-vintage funds reached approximately 2.0x TVPI by year six, while top-decile funds exceeded 3.1x. This is a historical cohort comparison, not a live 2026 target for a fund with a different vintage or strategy.
What does the 2019-vintage TVPI distribution show?
Carta’s Q4 2025 report, published March 19, 2026, reported the following TVPI distribution for 2019-vintage funds in its tracked sample. The spread demonstrates why a top-percentile result should not be presented as typical:
| 2019-vintage percentile | TVPI |
|---|---|
| 25th percentile | 1.02x |
| Median | 1.33x |
| 90th percentile | 3.01x |
The report tracks 2,906 Carta venture funds from 2017–2025 vintages, representing about $120.7 billion in combined capital under management; about 89% of those funds manage less than $100 million. The figures describe Carta’s tracked population, not every venture fund. The large distance between median and 90th percentile also makes median and quartiles more informative than a top-decile number on its own.
Best Value
How should you choose a fair benchmark?
There is no single universal venture benchmark. Build a relevant peer group and make its definitions visible before interpreting the result:
- Match vintage. Use the same vintage year where possible; if using a range, disclose it and account for differences in fund maturity.
- Match strategy and access point. Compare funds pursuing similar approaches, such as stage or investment focus, where the data allows.
- Match geography and fund size. These are available peer filters in PitchBook’s benchmark tools and can materially affect which funds belong in a comparison.
- Fix the reporting date. State the as-of date. PitchBook allows users to change the date used for charts, metrics and constituent funds, so results can shift with the selected period.
- Name the provider and sample. Carta reports on funds tracked on its platform. Cambridge Associates says its institutional-quality benchmarks use quarterly financial statements supplied directly by fund managers. These populations are not interchangeable, so do not combine their figures into an undifferentiated “industry average.”
- Show the distribution. Include median and quartiles, and label any top-decile or 90th-percentile figure. A high-end result is not a typical outcome.
- Report TVPI and DPI together, with IRR for timing. This separates total marked value, realized cash and the pace of returns.
- State net or gross basis and valuation context. Do not assume two providers’ figures are directly comparable without checking their methodology and how residual holdings are valued.
Provider series can also differ in how observations are maintained. PitchBook says it may extend cash multiples and IRR after five years when reported NAV is below 5% of commitments, and may carry a prior quarter forward in specified cases. Check the provider’s benchmark notes before interpreting a smooth or complete-looking series. Comparable survivorship adjustments across providers are not established here, so treat their series separately unless the methodology confirms comparability.
What should a useful performance readout include?
A clear fund-performance summary keeps the three questions—total value, cash returned and timing—distinct. State the fund’s vintage and reporting date; identify the data provider, peer group, strategy, geography, size and net or gross basis; then show TVPI, DPI and IRR together. If the fund still holds investments, show RVPI or otherwise make clear how much of total value remains unrealized.
Market activity figures are not substitutes for fund-return metrics. NVCA reported that US venture investment totaled $320 billion across 15,352 deals in 2025, with deal value up 51%; AI accounted for 65.4% of deal value. Those PitchBook-based figures describe investment activity, not LP-level performance.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
